Terror, yes, I am now on the correct track. The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change." The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome.

That's hilarious. Not one word of it is true. Seriously, what is the source of the "information" you believe?

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

They're always saying stuff like that, it just usually goes unnoticed. The only thing unusual is that these cases were widely reported. The reason they were widely reported this time is that the mainstream of the GOP had started muttering about overturning a Supreme Court decision from the 1970s that protected women's reproductive health under the "right to privacy" which is guaranteed, I believe, by the Fourth Amendment to our Constitution, so those comments were directly pertinent to an issue that was currently being debated at the national level. Normally, that court decision (Roe v. Wade) is taken for granted by all but the most radical religious extremists, and avoided like a "third rail" in our national politics. But there are a number of rural Republican representatives who can always be counted on to say idiotic things like that.

Don't you already have a link to the complete speech in which President Obama used that phrase? If not, why not? Have you not even looked for it? Is it because you're happier to assume he's a socialist than you would be to check the facts and learn that he really isn't? Not even close. He's not even a full-fledged Progressive and barely even leans that direction. Talk about mountains out of molehills.

This mashup you posted earlier is moderately cunning as propaganda goes, but it contains no real information. The viewer is intended to infer, as you have, from the one phrase "fundamental change," that both men are talking about exactly the same change and that both are willing to resort to the same tactics. Neither of which is true and no actual evidence supports either inference. But neuro-linguistic programming "can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded."

Both President Obama and Bill Ayers used the phrase "fundamental change" but neither said anything about "a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome." In fact, nobody ever says anything about equality of outcome but you wrong-wing extremists when you're making your straw men arguments about Progressives and progress.

And then there's the well known fact that the two men's "acquaintance" with one another is fabricated from once belonging to the same group.

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.

Your failure to answer the question is duly noted, it was 1931. Every landslide election in the UK since then has been on less than half the votes cast. Thatcher in 1983, where there were 397 Conservative MPs vs 253 others was on 42.4% of the popular vote, Blair in 2001 had 413 Labour MPs vs 237 others on 40.1% of the popular vote.

As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye....I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.

Your failure to answer the question is duly noted, it was 1931. Every landslide election in the UK since then has been on less than half the votes cast. Thatcher in 1983, where there were 397 Conservative MPs vs 253 others was on 42.4% of the popular vote, Blair in 2001 had 413 Labour MPs vs 237 others on 40.1% of the popular vote.

As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye....

Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast.

There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%.

So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.

Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast.

There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%.

So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.

WK, you may be on to something here. Each eligible voter who doesn't vote should have their vote automatically cast for "none of these candidates." That might just shake up elections in the USA. Instead of this register every moron BS the parties would only want to register people who will actually vote and then they will have to be sure they don't turn them off with vile attack advertisements. May be on to something WK.